The Honor Committee at the University identifies its sole objective as the pursuit of truth. Its treasured poem and motto, "The Honor Men," assures its readers that members of the system are dedicated to "track no man to his undeserved hurt." Despite the dissent of many of my peers, I have trusted in the legitimacy of these claims for my last three years at this University. I have wanted to believe in the justice and the goodness of the system, and knowing that small errors should not be held to delegitimize an entire tradition -- especially one with such noble aspirations -- I have given it many liberties. This is why it is with great sadness and disillusionment that I must sit and write this column today.
Our University is about to commit a great crime against its students. Unfortunately, one individual, should he be convicted, will be the one to take the fall, but in the tradition of the University's values of brotherhood and Honor, the plight of Adam Boyd is something with which we all should take issue.
On Tuesday, Oct. 15, an Honor Committee hearing was held pertaining to the prospective dismissal of the upcoming Boyd trial. Boyd, who has been accused by Astronomy Professor Charles Tolbert of cheating on one of his exams, implored the Committee on Tuesday night to throw out his case. It has come to light that -- above and beyond other problems with the investigation of Boyd's case (like the fact that, according to Boyd, this investigation did not even begin until six to seven months after the alleged offense) -- recently gathered evidence would suggest that one of the two investigators working on this trial has knowingly and intentionally lied on record about his activity pertaining to Boyd's case. This apparent lie was not in regard to an inconsequential detail. According to Boyd, it now seems very probable that an honor investigator not only failed to contact and interview the key witness in Boyd's case, but that he later lied about this fact, claiming that he had discussed the matter with her.
Evidence presented by Boyd suggests that when questioned about his interaction with the witness in question, the Astronomy Department secretary, the investigator answered that, "yes," he had contacted her, but had not included her in his report due to the fact that "what she had to say wasn't pertinent." When this same department secretary was questioned later as to whether she had been contacted by the investigators, she replied, "I have never heard of these people. No one in the honor system has contacted me concerning this case."
This evidence was presented to the Committee on Tuesday night, yet even in the face of this possible atrocity -- and, perhaps, honor offense -- on the part of one of its members directly responsible for handling this case, the Committee failed to dismiss Boyd's case and maintained its determination to send the matter to trial.
This decision was justified by the Committee on the grounds that, basically, this evidence was not sufficient to merit the dismissal of the case. If the blatant abuse of the honor system, the betrayal of all its principles from the inside and the total disregard for the well-being of the student whose literal future hinges upon the verdict of this trial is not sufficient for dismissal, what on Earth is? What happened to the pursuit of truth?Because the investigation was not started until six months after the offense allegedly occurred, work on Boyd's trial did not even begin until it was too late to gather conclusive evidence from the memories of witnesses. The key witness was not contacted, and it would seem that one of the two main people in charge of his case -- not to mention Boyd's future -- has been dishonest. Given these facts, no evidence pertaining to this case can be deemed legitimate.
Yet the Committee refuses to acknowledge this fact and instead has elected to send Adam Boyd into a trial room this Saturday with no conclusive evidence with which to make his case -- despite the fact that, should it have investigated with integrity in a timely manner, it could well have been found. Due to the apparent incompetence of the Committee members, this case has been reduced to a battle of personal oaths. Boyd has been unjustly left to offer little but his word against that of a University professor. This hardly seems like justice.
I will not speculate unto the motives behind the Committee's decision to bring this case to trial despite its obvious illegitimacy. At this point, such facts are inconsequential. The reality that we face is this: Unless something is done, Adam Boyd will walk into a trial tomorrow in which the odds -- not the evidence -- are heavily and unjustly stacked against him. Is Boyd guilty? Only he knows that. What is abundantly clear however, is that the honor system is guilty of grave incompetence by association with its appointed investigators on this case. Given this fact, this case simply cannot go to trial. Maybe it will reflect poorly on the honor system to go back on its decision at the 11th hour, to dismiss Boyd's case, but the Committee needs to put its ego and concern with appearance aside and seek after its own stated aspirations: the protection of justice, honor and truth.
(Laura Parcells is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at lparcells@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
